Biggest protest in UK since rushdie (Trafalgar square)

Published by al_goraba on 9 February, 2006 - 15:05
97 posts / 0 new
Post reply
Last post
Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 20:27

Not exactly.

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by You on 9 February, 2006 - 20:30

"100man" wrote:
Not exactly.

you're talking from expreience!! :twisted:

I have no idea if he is affiliated with the group. I do think they use a diferent spelling though...

And i have asked some questions in the events board. Answer them here, as i did not realise it was being discussed here.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 20:37

Smile

Normally it's Al-Ghurabaa. I don't know either but you know me, a bit of egg on my face from time to time is all in a day's work. The question stands.

What I will not do either way is take it that I am already an expert on his views.

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by *DUST* on 9 February, 2006 - 20:48

"Admin" wrote:
and what type of placards will there bew present?will everyone bring their own, or are pre-screened ones gonna be used?

(and I know there will be idiots at the end who will try to turn it into a rave. That always happens. I am not bothered about that.)


i heard that there are going to be placards provided by the organisers of the event and protesters are not allowed to bring/make their own.

wot always happens? :?

i have not been to these things in ages, the last one i went to was that massive Iraq one i think. i used to drag my family along to them before, but after seeing the Iraq one having no effect whatsoever, we all pretty much lost motivation and no longer bother. that and there's always some kinda unislamic behaviour among the crowd. :?

—

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

Submitted by Beast on 9 February, 2006 - 20:52

"*DUST*" wrote:
that and there's always some kinda unislamic behaviour among the crowd. :?

Once a HT guy told me not to join a demo that was taking place a 100 yards away.

He said I shouldn't mix with the gays, lesbians, and socialists. But that didn't stop him and his mates setting up two stalls nearby.

:roll:

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 20:55

According to the Muslim Action Committee, which I had never heard of but seems to be related to MPAC, the only banners will be distributed by the organisers and it won't be hijacked.

They are promoting their march with this image:

[url=

It is another effort to unite Muslims by attacking Jews. I do not think MPAC is a responsible voice.

[size=9]*EDITED THEN UNEDITED FOLLOWING DAVE'S QUOTATION OF THE EDITED PORTION*[/size]

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by Dave on 9 February, 2006 - 20:56

"100man" wrote:

It is another effort to unite Muslims by attacking Jews. I do not think MPAC is a responsible voice.

A kosovar on the MPAC forum pointed out that they got the image (and the article attached to it) from a neo-nazi website.

Submitted by Beast on 9 February, 2006 - 20:57

"100man" wrote:

It is another effort to unite Muslims by attacking Jews. I do not think MPAC is a responsible voice.

A criticism of Israel is a criticism of all Jews?

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 20:59

"Beast" wrote:
"100man" wrote:

It is another effort to unite Muslims by attacking Jews. I do not think MPAC is a responsible voice.

A criticism of Israel is a criticism of all Jews?

Here it is. The criticism is not specifically of Israel.

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by Beast on 9 February, 2006 - 21:03

"100man" wrote:
"Beast" wrote:
"100man" wrote:

It is another effort to unite Muslims by attacking Jews. I do not think MPAC is a responsible voice.

A criticism of Israel is a criticism of all Jews?

Here it is. The criticism is not specifically of Israel.

Who or what [i]is[/i]it a criticism of then?

Submitted by You on 9 February, 2006 - 21:05

I do not even see how nthat pic is relevant...

somebody hit me with a clue stick. How is that pic being attached to this issue?

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by *DUST* on 9 February, 2006 - 21:05

"Beast" wrote:
"*DUST*" wrote:
that and there's always some kinda unislamic behaviour among the crowd. :?

Once a HT guy told me not to join a demo that was taking place a 100 yards away.

He said I shouldn't mix with the gays, lesbians, and socialists. But that didn't stop him and his mates setting up two stalls nearby.

:roll:


erm, actually i was referring to muslims themselves behaving unislamically... Sad
—

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

Submitted by *DUST* on 9 February, 2006 - 21:07

"Admin" wrote:
I do not even see how nthat pic is relevant...

somebody hit me with a clue stick. How is that pic being attached to this issue?


exactly wot i was about to say - Beast and 100, putting aside ur discussion, wot is the point of that poster in relation to this protest? Fool
—

[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=, X-Men[/url]

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 21:16

It is pouring blame on the cultural editor of the Danish paper, Flemming Rose, and mentioning that someone else (Jewish) intimated to the BBC that 'agents of a certain persuasion' were behind this. It also makes much of Rose's objection to a cartoon in The Independent depicting Ariel Sharon eating a baby.

I have no evidence that Flemming Rose is Jewish, but even if he is it is a despicable article. It would be enough, if they can categorically assert that he is Jewish, to examine the possibility that he is informed by prejudice. Rather the article and illustration are implying a conspiracy of Jews against Muslims. I don't think this has anything to do with Jews. However I am not surprised at this spin.

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by Beast on 9 February, 2006 - 21:21

"100man" wrote:
I don't think this has anything to do with Jews. However I am not surprised at this spin.

How about the spin that Muslims want to curtail free speech?

Submitted by Dave on 9 February, 2006 - 21:21

"Beast" wrote:
"Don Karnage" wrote:
I see yall missed the [url= website[/url] part...

eah, that guy has pointed out quite a few instances where that has happened.

MPAC can't always seem to find anti-Zionist images from legit websites.

lol... they might want to get on that.

Stormfront would be proud.

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 21:24

"Beast" wrote:
"100man" wrote:
I don't think this has anything to do with Jews. However I am not surprised at this spin.

How about the spin that Muslims want to curtail free speech?


Spin from where?
—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by Beast on 9 February, 2006 - 21:35

Melanie Philips:
"Self-censorship over Islam has been the order of the day ever since the Rushdie affair – and it was instructive to see that yet more ‘moderate’ British Muslims have been saying that the cartoons would never have been published had Rushdie been killed."

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 21:47

You may have a point, and so might Melanie Phillips. I am popping out, will pick up later.

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by iRazor on 9 February, 2006 - 22:51

Regarding this Protest, I think its the Press conference i saw Live on sky news active.

It is organised by mainstream muslim organisation, when i say mainstream, i mean of the moderate type.

It was made clear at the press conference the reasoning behind the protest. It was to show the disgust of the british people at the reprinting of the cartoons.

It was also made clear that it will be a peaceful protest, and police will eliminate anyone who is causing trouble.

Also banners and placards will be distributed centrally to avoid any idiots with idiotic ideas spoiling things.

The reason its in trafalgar square is becuz its large place, and can fit many people in as possible. Also it is easily accessible.

I think the protest is a good idea, if it remains peacful and without trouble. The protest shows how disgusted we are, and how many of us are unhappy. Its all well and good us sitting behind a computer screen crying about it, we need to get into the media to show how hurt we are.

The goal is to make people aware of the pain we felt and still feel, and that will be convayed hopefully in sundays newspapers.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I believe this is a good idea!!

—

_____________- -SupeRazor- -_______________

Some ppl make their goals the stars.
They may live n die n never reach the stars,
but in the darkness of the night, those stars will guide them to their destination.
Becuz they made them in their eyesight

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 23:16

If it is that I'll say I'm neutral, even supportive inasmuch as you have a concern. But I am not neutral about the imagery on MPAC's website, nor the pervasive and mechanical habit of blaming the Jews - even blaming Israel - for a catalogue of afflictions and world unrest generally. At the very least it poisons any kind of relations with Israel. It is also routine extremist libel. It is also distressing me. It is no joke.

[size=9]*EDIT I have just glanced at the link to Melanie Phillips' site and a long article there makes the case for that point. It is coincidence, or Beast was drawing my attention to the whole thing. That is not the article Beast was referring to though, I'm checking it now.*[/size]

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by 100man on 9 February, 2006 - 23:42

"Melanie Phillips" wrote:
Whether or not Conway is right about this, the cartoon jihad has made one thing crystal clear. No more alibis. The roots of global terror do not lie in Iraq, nor in Israel/Palestine, nor in Chechnya, Kashmir or any of the other iconic conflicts which are said to be its cause. They lie instead in the Islamists’ rage that their religious culture is not in power across the world, their determination to subordinate that world to its tenets and their truly pathological belief that it is they who are under attack if their victims dare defend themselves. Twelve scribbled drawings have lifted the veil -- on both the nature of the threat and the disarray that greets it.

Spot on.

Also in that piece...

"On the Civitas website David Conway" wrote:

But who wanted or caused the heat to become so turned up and why at that this particular moment? The clue to the answers to this second question lies in a second event almost certain to occur to today, if it has not already happened by the time this blog gets posted. This is the likely decision today in Vienna by the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its programme of nuclear research. If that decision should occur, when the UN Security Council gets round to considering what form of sanctions to impose on Iran, guess to whom chairmanship of the Council will have passed. You’ve got it... plucky little Denmark.
Suddenly, the pieces fall into shape. The rumpus suddenly escalated, complete with fabricated offensive cartoons, to so enflame Muslim opinion that Denmark could be intimidated directly through a threatened Muslim boycott of its goods, or indirectly by the EU fearful of a wider boycott, into voting in favour of Iran.
Whatever the Security Council eventually may decide over sanctions against Iran, it is unlikely to deter that country from continuing to develop the technology needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, Prospect of its acquisition of them is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, as well as, sooner or later, oblige Israel or the US to make some pre-emptive strike against it to prevent its programme from reaching completion.

At best, such a strike will succeed, but not without precipitating a conventional war in the Middle East the repercussions of which will not escape Europe in the form of suicide bombings. At worst, pre-emption will fail, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, and, with a President of that country as gung-ho as its current one, we all receive tickets for a one-way trip to oblivion.

It is not a thrilling prospect for sure. But that is all the more reason why the West needs to remain strong, united, and resolved to resist the challenge of militant Islam. If Europe has recently been made more so than it has been of late, it has to thank for that, paradoxically, the malicious militancy of the mullahs and imams whose fabrication of the grounds of the current crisis has given the West a second wake-up call to the true scale and nature of the current danger that it faces to which all too many Europeans failed to have become alerted by the first wake-up call given on September 11th.

I thought this was interesting. I don't vouch for it, mind.

Beast has a point. Phillips and other centre-right commentators are inaccurate and empirical when writing off 'moderate Islam'. I don't think it is a front page spin but it is common. They notice that moderate Muslims frequently rally behind a very similar cause to violent extremists, that supposedly moderate views are often but a justification for extremism, and that many extremists in a fix will claim to be moderates anyway on the taqqiyeh principle of concealing one’s true intention, after all they are human, if they don't actually have Kalashnikov's on them they don't want a fight. The problem is compounded by an intense effort to shore up (especially western) Muslim unity from various corners, even if that means lumping the perfectly sane in with the sublime and the ridiculous, and some Muslims are suckers for that and will not distinguish their values from those of another Muslim, just as some journalists are suckers for that and won’t distinguish one Muslim from another.

I think that Phillips is being careless and angry, which is a shame because she has a great understanding of the unfolding jihad.

I am pointing also at a longstanding issue, how to gain prominence for sensible views over extremist ones, and at the same time to report extremist Muslim actions without offending other Muslims. Either way if you're a Muslim it means a lot of news with the letters M and I jumping out at you. I propose those Muslims inclined to wage a publicity campaign for peaceful Islam keep a very long distance from those who wage a jihad, because one lesson I have learned is it gets confusing.

—

[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]

Submitted by You on 10 February, 2006 - 00:32

'Ed wants me to put up info about this rally on the homepage. I am unsure...

Probably will though. but I do not think its a good idea. Its too little too late, and would easily be hijacked.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by star on 10 February, 2006 - 00:42

a god idea ? what u saying.

Submitted by You on 10 February, 2006 - 00:45

why is everyone picking on my spelling today?

Cray 2

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by star on 10 February, 2006 - 00:48

lol

i actually didnt think it was a spelling mistake.....i thought u must have had a dream with god telling not to put it up lol. god idea..

Submitted by You on 10 February, 2006 - 00:50

I am not G W Bush!

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Pages

Post reply